<u who="nm1159"> # and we saw that in some ways the # <pause dur="0.5"/> # a Lockean state of nature <pause dur="0.9"/> was similar in some ways difference the some ways different <pause dur="0.3"/> some ways it was # <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # very different in that it was regulated it wasn't the <trunc>ho</trunc> necessarily the horrible state of anarchy <pause dur="0.5"/> that you <trunc>ha</trunc> had in the case of Hobbes <pause dur="0.5"/> but nonetheless there are inconveniences in Locke's state of nature <pause dur="0.8"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.4"/> # individuals do need to come out of the state of nature <pause dur="0.3"/> and set up # <pause dur="0.3"/> a political community <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> which will have its <trunc>a</trunc> which will have a government # do you remember you need the need for an impartial <pause dur="0.4"/> judge a judge who can <trunc>en</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> could enforce a <pause dur="0.4"/> its decisions <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> and here we have the idea of the social contract again like Hobbes <pause dur="0.2"/> Locke invokes the idea of a social contract of individuals contracting with one another <pause dur="1.1"/> to set up <pause dur="0.5"/> government <pause dur="1.1"/> and one of the again one of the ways to # <pause dur="0.2"/> appreciate or <trunc>u</trunc> comprehend <pause dur="0.2"/> Locke's idea of the social contract is to compare and contrast it <pause dur="0.4"/> with Hobbes' idea of the social

contract <pause dur="1.6"/> # there are again similarities and differences <pause dur="0.3"/> there is a similarity a basic similarity <pause dur="0.5"/> in that you've got the idea <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>e</trunc> every individual <pause dur="0.9"/> agreeing with every other individual <pause dur="0.3"/> to give up something to do with their natural rights <pause dur="0.6"/> every individual agreeing with every other individual promising <pause dur="0.2"/> every other individual <pause dur="0.4"/> to give up <pause dur="0.3"/> something to do with their natural rights <pause dur="0.4"/> so that's the basic similarity <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> the difference <pause dur="0.2"/> well the differences concern <pause dur="0.3"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> precisely is given up <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> to what <pause dur="0.4"/> these things are given up <pause dur="0.9"/> so let's look at each of those <pause dur="0.4"/> first of all <pause dur="0.3"/> what <pause dur="0.5"/> what <pause dur="0.2"/> precisely is given up <pause dur="1.2"/> now you'll remember that in the case of Hobbes <pause dur="0.6"/> # what individuals give up <pause dur="0.4"/> is the <trunc>nat</trunc> is natural right their natural right itself <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> with the exception of <pause dur="0.3"/> the natural right to life and there were some puzzles and difficulties about that <pause dur="0.4"/> as i suggested the the the exceptions here didn't really amount to much so <pause dur="0.3"/> just <pause dur="0.2"/> to permissibly oversimplify <pause dur="0.4"/> in the case of Hobbes <pause dur="0.5"/> what

individuals give up <pause dur="0.2"/> is their natural right or their natural rights but probably in the case of Hobbes better to <trunc>s</trunc> well to speak about their natural right <pause dur="0.2"/> so in a sense they give up everything <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> in the case of Locke <pause dur="0.8"/> they do not <pause dur="0.6"/> there is a crucial sense in which they do not give up anything clearly that's <pause dur="0.2"/> they do give up something and i'll explain that in a moment <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> but what they give up <pause dur="0.2"/> is the right to protect their natural rights <pause dur="0.4"/> and the right to enforce their natural rights <pause dur="0.5"/> the key point is they do not give up those natural rights themselves that is a absolutely crucial difference <pause dur="0.4"/> between <pause dur="0.3"/> Locke and Hobbes they do not repeat do not <pause dur="0.5"/> give up their natural rights <pause dur="0.5"/> what they give up <pause dur="0.4"/> is the right to enforce them <pause dur="0.7"/> # you'll remember in the state of nature if somebody infringes your natural rights <pause dur="0.2"/> you have the right to go and punish them <pause dur="0.5"/> or to try and rectify the violation <pause dur="0.6"/> # in in the social contract individuals say to each other we will no longer enforce our

natural rights ourselves we'll give up that right <pause dur="0.5"/> and will <unclear>as you as</unclear> you will <trunc>s</trunc> will see what they do is hand that right over to government and we'll come to that in a minute <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> one way of putting this is the way that # <pause dur="1.1"/> # Nozick <pause dur="0.3"/> put it <pause dur="0.6"/> N-O-Z-I-C-K <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a <trunc>f</trunc> a # <pause dur="0.9"/> # contemporary political theorists <pause dur="0.4"/> # who wrote a famous or infamous book perhaps called Anarchy State and Utopia <pause dur="0.5"/> published in nineteen-seventy-four i think <pause dur="0.4"/> some see Anarchy State and Utopia <pause dur="0.4"/> as something on a level with # <pause dur="0.4"/> John Rawls' A Theory of Justice as a profound <pause dur="0.6"/> or and a penetrating work of political theory <pause dur="0.4"/> others see it as a nasty right wing political tract # <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll leave you to decide by <pause dur="0.4"/> if you if you wish to <pause dur="0.4"/> read or read about it the reason i'm referring to it here is <pause dur="0.5"/> that Nozick <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>s</trunc> <trunc>pes</trunc> specifically starts from a Lockean conception of state of nature what he is saying is <pause dur="0.3"/> let us assume <pause dur="0.2"/> the validity of Locke's state of nature <pause dur="0.3"/> and theorize from there <pause dur="0.4"/> # in fact he theorizes he comes to somewhat <pause dur="0.5"/> some

slightly different well <pause dur="0.7"/> # he theories differs from Locke's and there on to some extent but there are many similarities it's a <pause dur="0.3"/> sort of updating of Lockean <pause dur="0.5"/> political theory <pause dur="0.5"/> i'm referring to him here because he makes a useful distinction between <pause dur="0.2"/> procedural and substantive rights that is to say <pause dur="0.6"/> in the social contract individuals do not give up their substantive rights they only give up their procedural rights <pause dur="0.4"/> they give up the right to the procedure for enforcing those rights but they don't give up the rights themselves <pause dur="1.7"/> that is to say as we'll see for Locke individuals keep their natural rights <pause dur="0.4"/> whilst they're under government they do not surrender them by putting themselves under government <pause dur="0.7"/> and this of course <pause dur="0.4"/> crucially limits what a government can legitimately do <pause dur="0.4"/> this of course is <pause dur="0.3"/> a key reason why <pause dur="0.3"/> Locke is the great <pause dur="0.3"/> liberal political theorist <pause dur="0.5"/> and # governments are not <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> do not have the authority <pause dur="0.6"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> infringe natural rights by individuals putting themselves under

government do not give up their natural rights they only give up <pause dur="0.3"/> their procedural rights to enforce their natural rights <pause dur="2.3"/> for Locke then the inconvenience of the state of nature means that there are no <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>tha</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> in the state of nature there is no <trunc>inf</trunc> effective and impartial interpreter <pause dur="0.3"/> of natural rights # an enforcer of natural rights and this is an inconvenience <pause dur="0.3"/> so they <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>g</trunc> # by <trunc>pref</trunc> # <trunc>br</trunc> # they engage in the social contract <pause dur="0.3"/> to set up <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> this <trunc>i</trunc> impartial <trunc>enfor</trunc> enforcer of # natural rights the government and i'll come say more about that in a minute <pause dur="0.5"/> but the second difference you'll remember <pause dur="0.2"/> regarded <pause dur="0.3"/> between Hobbes and Locke here <pause dur="0.3"/> regards <pause dur="0.2"/> what precisely is given up in at social contract sorry to what <pause dur="0.2"/> these things are given up <pause dur="0.3"/> in the case of Hobbes you'll remember <pause dur="0.2"/> individuals give up their natural rights hand over their natural rights <pause dur="0.2"/> to the sovereign directly <pause dur="0.3"/> to the sovereign <pause dur="1.3"/> indeed <pause dur="0.5"/> for Hobbes nothing else is possible <pause dur="0.5"/> there is no other entity to

whom <pause dur="0.4"/> or to which <pause dur="0.2"/> you could over hand over natural rights there are only individuals <pause dur="0.4"/> # and they hand over <trunc>partic</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> to a particular individual the sovereign or <pause dur="0.3"/> particular group of individuals if # if the sovereign <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>i</trunc> is an assembly <pause dur="0.6"/> in the case of Locke though we have another entity which is of great importance <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of intermediate if you like between the individual and the government <pause dur="0.5"/> the political community <pause dur="0.2"/> the body politic <pause dur="0.3"/> the commonwealth these are all <pause dur="0.5"/> # words which Locke uses interchangeably <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes he <trunc>pi</trunc> the people or a people <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> so for for Locke individuals <pause dur="0.3"/> give up what they do give up which is their procedural rights remember not their natural rights <pause dur="0.2"/> to a political community <pause dur="0.2"/> to a body politic <pause dur="0.5"/> to a commonwealth <pause dur="0.5"/> or if you like to a people <pause dur="1.5"/> that people <pause dur="0.4"/> that commonwealth that body politic <pause dur="0.4"/> then sets up a government <pause dur="0.2"/> so they don't hand over their procedural rights directly to a government they hand it their procedural rights over to a body politic <pause dur="0.6"/> a

people <pause dur="0.3"/> which then <pause dur="0.4"/> sets up a government <pause dur="1.2"/> to to give an analogy let us # <pause dur="0.6"/> think of individuals say within this university <pause dur="0.6"/> who all interested in playing tennis so they get together and decide to form a tennis club that's if you like step one but having formed a tennis club they actually need to run the tennis club <pause dur="0.3"/> so they then have to appoint a committee so there's two steps you form the club and then you form the committee <pause dur="0.5"/> similarly for Locke <pause dur="0.4"/> you form the body politic the body politic then forms it as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> its executive committee <pause dur="0.5"/> # that is the say <pause dur="0.5"/> the government there's a bit more to it than that but that analogy <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> is fair enough i think <pause dur="0.5"/> now some see this in terms of two contracts there is a temptation to see this in terms of two contracts <pause dur="0.7"/> first contract <pause dur="1.6"/> amongst the individuals themselves to set up the <trunc>p</trunc> political community <pause dur="0.8"/> the people <pause dur="0.6"/> second contract <pause dur="0.7"/> # is sometimes seen as being between the people thus formed and the government <pause dur="0.2"/> contract one between the individuals to set

up a people contract two <pause dur="0.2"/> between the people and the government <pause dur="0.4"/> and it is sometimes seen in this way <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> the reason it is sometimes seen in this way because there are other theorists before Locke <pause dur="0.2"/> who did conceive and i've mentioned this before <pause dur="0.4"/> there are other theorists before Locke <pause dur="0.4"/> who did conceive of there being a contract between the people and the government <pause dur="0.4"/> Locke <trunc>in</trunc> actually doesn't see it that way although he comes up with # <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> ideas which have a similar effect <pause dur="0.6"/> because Locke sees the people as setting up a government as a trustee <pause dur="0.8"/> the government is a trustee <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>li</trunc> # the idea here like a trustee that runs a trust fund <pause dur="0.2"/> trustee that runs a trust fund <pause dur="0.4"/> runs the fund on the <trunc>beha</trunc> on behalf of and has duties to <pause dur="0.3"/> the beneficiaries <pause dur="0.5"/> well similarly the government is set up as a trustee of the people it runs <pause dur="0.4"/> # affairs on behalf of the beneficiary <pause dur="0.3"/> which is the <pause dur="0.4"/> which is the people <pause dur="1.1"/> so rather than the <pause dur="0.5"/> # government and the people being in a contractual relationship <pause dur="0.5"/> they are on the

relationship of a trustee the government <pause dur="0.3"/> to a beneficiary of the trust the people <pause dur="0.6"/> but it's important to note <pause dur="0.2"/> and we'll come back to this it's important to note <pause dur="0.7"/> that the people are not just the beneficiaries <pause dur="0.5"/> they are also the interpreters of the terms of the trust <pause dur="0.5"/> now normally where you've got a trust fund and a trustee <pause dur="0.3"/> it is the <pause dur="0.2"/> not the beneficiary who interprets the terms of the trust it is of course <pause dur="0.4"/> the courts of law that interpret the terms and the <trunc>be</trunc> the beneficiary does not himself interpret the terms of the trust <pause dur="0.6"/> in the case of Locke and government <pause dur="0.3"/> as we'll see the people are not only the beneficiaries but they're also the interpreters <pause dur="0.3"/> of the terms of the trust let's see what <pause dur="0.4"/> Parry i i mentioned before Geraint Parry in his helpful book <pause dur="0.5"/> John Locke says about this this is pages <pause dur="0.4"/> ninety-nine and one-two-four <pause dur="1.1"/> # he says <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>for Locke contract created a political society <pause dur="0.2"/> and is the means whereby once free individuals become subject to the new

jurisdiction <pause dur="0.8"/> government is not established directly <trunc>f</trunc> by contract <pause dur="0.5"/> for some earlier political thinkers <pause dur="0.3"/> government too had been the product of contract <pause dur="1.2"/> Locke took a different line from these predecessors <pause dur="0.3"/> the only contract is that of association <pause dur="0.4"/> which is</reading> and then he quotes Locke <reading>which is all the compact there is or needs to be between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth <pause dur="0.9"/> government is instituted by a distinct <pause dur="0.2"/> act of trust <pause dur="0.6"/> whereby the associated community <pause dur="0.5"/> transfers its executive right to a smaller body of persons <pause dur="0.3"/> for the more effective performance of society's <pause dur="0.6"/> duties</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> # and again <pause dur="0.8"/> he says <reading>the political community is established by contract <pause dur="0.7"/> civil government is established by a distinct act of trust whereby the people conditionally transfer their executive right <pause dur="0.3"/> to some amongst themselves <pause dur="0.3"/> who would act as umpires and rule-makers for the rest <pause dur="0.8"/> this act of trust is the fundamental

constitutional act of the political community <pause dur="0.6"/> which determines the way in which the authority is institutionalized <pause dur="0.5"/> it is the original and supreme act of society</reading> that's a quote from Locke <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>it establishes the form of government <pause dur="0.5"/> the mode of succession <pause dur="0.4"/> the relations of legislative to executive <pause dur="0.5"/> all the institutions of government owe their authority <pause dur="0.5"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> to that <pause dur="0.4"/> act of trust</reading> and i think that expresses it <pause dur="0.4"/> very well <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> note to come back to a point i've already made that this means <pause dur="0.5"/> that the political community <pause dur="0.4"/> the body politic if you like the people <pause dur="0.4"/> is distinct from <pause dur="0.2"/> and can remove the government <pause dur="0.5"/> that is to say if the government breaks the terms of the trust <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>poli</trunc> the <trunc>pol</trunc> body politic can remove <pause dur="0.2"/> the people can remove <pause dur="0.5"/> the government <pause dur="0.7"/> and it can do this without <pause dur="0.3"/> threatening its own dissolution again the contrast is with Hobbes for Hobbes <pause dur="0.3"/> if the government is removed <pause dur="0.2"/> there is no people <pause dur="0.4"/> the only thing that holds individuals together as a

collective entity you'll remember is the <trunc>s</trunc> the authority of the sovereign <pause dur="0.2"/> no sovereign <pause dur="0.2"/> no people <pause dur="0.6"/> now for Locke it's not like that <pause dur="0.5"/> there is a body <pause dur="0.2"/> separate from the sovereign actually doesn't use the term sovereign so we must talk about the government meaning the legislature and the executive <pause dur="0.6"/> the people can remove the government <pause dur="0.2"/> and thereby <pause dur="0.4"/> and not risk dissolving itself <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the government # the the the the people the body politic can in fact remove one government and appoint another and of course he's very keen to make this point because that's how Locke conceptualized what went on at the English Revolution <pause dur="0.4"/> the English people removed <pause dur="0.5"/> one government <pause dur="0.3"/> one king <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> James the Second and and and and and and and set up another <pause dur="0.2"/> king <pause dur="0.4"/> William and Mary <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> so it's it's vital for <trunc>hob</trunc> for for what Locke wants to do to conceptualize the people as being able to act <pause dur="0.6"/> # independently of the government and indeed to <pause dur="0.4"/> to remove a government if necessary or <trunc>w</trunc>

when the conditions are such that they ought to be removed and to set up another one <pause dur="1.1"/> so to summarize then <pause dur="0.2"/> # these points individuals form a political community <pause dur="0.2"/> they already are remember <pause dur="0.2"/> in a community of a sort in the state of nature <pause dur="0.5"/> unlike for Hobbes where the state of nature is not even any kind of community <pause dur="1.1"/> for Locke individuals are already in a form of community <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> it's not satisfactory so they form a political community a people <pause dur="1.0"/> they give up to this political community this people this body politic <pause dur="0.4"/> the right of enforcing their natural rights but nothing more they do not give up those rights themselves they only give up the right to enforce their rights <pause dur="0.6"/> and this political community <pause dur="0.2"/> this commonwealth this people then sets up a government <pause dur="0.2"/> which executes this task for them this task of enforcing their natural rights <pause dur="0.6"/> or enforcing the protection of their natural rights <pause dur="0.6"/> # is done for the people <pause dur="0.4"/> by the government which it sets up again that is all that

the government does <pause dur="0.3"/> let me rephrase that <pause dur="0.3"/> that is all the <trunc>gov</trunc> that the government can legitimately do <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> unfortunately as we'll see not all governments are legitimate <pause dur="0.4"/> # but that is all that the government can legitimately do <pause dur="0.9"/> that is to say the government <pause dur="0.5"/> ought to do can legitimately do no more <pause dur="0.8"/> than what the political community was set up to do <pause dur="0.3"/> in the first place <pause dur="3.5"/>

now i want to say move on to saying something about <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> Locke's account <pause dur="0.4"/> of government by consent <pause dur="0.5"/> you may wish i wasn't going to <trunc>sa</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> talk about this 'cause it's complicated and confusing <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> but it should be <pause dur="0.2"/> talked about <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> because # <pause dur="0.4"/> the idea of <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> government by consent <pause dur="0.6"/> is important it's a crucial part of Locke's theory <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> very important part of Locke's theory <pause dur="0.4"/> Locke as we'll see has often been criticized for being unclear about what he is saying <pause dur="0.4"/> # many critics of Locke say either he is unclear <pause dur="0.2"/> or what he is saying is silly or perhaps both <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's # <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> it <trunc>i</trunc> it is important it is important to

try and understand it <pause dur="2.5"/> the starting point is this # <pause dur="1.1"/> Locke is not only saying <pause dur="0.2"/> legitimate government is government which abides by natural law that is to say legitimate government is not only government <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> which doesn't infringe the term for the contract and invade natural rights <pause dur="0.2"/> it is <pause dur="0.4"/> I-E it abides by natural law <pause dur="0.5"/> a legitimate government is one which abides by natural law it doesn't infringe on our natural rights <pause dur="0.9"/> but legitimate government is also a government which is consented to <pause dur="0.8"/> which is consented to <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> government by consent a government cannot be legitimate unless it is consented to whatever that means and we'll try and flesh that <pause dur="0.3"/> out a bit and so the starting point let's have a look at what he says para twenty-two page <pause dur="0.4"/> two-eight-three <pause dur="1.8"/> beginning of chapter four <pause dur="0.8"/> <reading>the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth <pause dur="0.3"/> and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man <pause dur="0.5"/> but to have <pause dur="0.2"/> only the law of nature for his rule <pause dur="0.7"/> that

is the natural condition of man <pause dur="0.9"/> the liberty of man in society <pause dur="0.2"/> is to be under no under no other legislative power <pause dur="0.4"/> but that established <pause dur="0.2"/> by consent</reading> <pause dur="0.7"/> the only way you can be legitimate power over <pause dur="0.3"/> people is for that <trunc>i</trunc> is for a power which <trunc>d</trunc> # # # # for that power to be consented to <pause dur="1.2"/> but what does this mean consenting to the power of government or consenting to government or consenting to be putting <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> consenting to put oneself under government <pause dur="0.7"/> and there are notorious difficulties here in <trunc>in</trunc> and interpreting and understanding Locke and as i say he he has been subject <pause dur="0.3"/> to many criticisms <pause dur="0.7"/> you may think <pause dur="0.3"/> or may or may not think <pause dur="0.4"/> these criticisms are valid <pause dur="0.6"/> but let us # try and get hold of what Locke is saying <pause dur="2.1"/> as i say i mean the the the idea of government <trunc>ky</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> by consent is not just something you find in Locke # it has become very important <pause dur="0.4"/> # you often talk about democracy we often characterize democracy today do we not as a system of government by

consent <pause dur="0.4"/> this idea of government by consent is held to be very important today <pause dur="0.4"/> and dictatorial regimes are often criticized by Liberal Democrats precisely because in those regimes there is no <pause dur="0.3"/> government by consent the Iraqi people are not being consented to be governed <pause dur="0.4"/> by Saddam Hussein so <pause dur="0.3"/> a Liberal <pause dur="0.3"/> Democrat would say <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> and Locke is regarded as the fountainhead <pause dur="0.2"/> of this idea of <pause dur="0.4"/> government <pause dur="0.2"/> by consent <pause dur="0.5"/> # so let us try at any rate to understand what <pause dur="0.4"/> Locke <pause dur="0.2"/> means by it <pause dur="0.8"/> well the first point to note i suppose is that # <pause dur="1.5"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> the idea of consent <pause dur="0.2"/> is obviously tied in with the idea of the social contract <pause dur="1.8"/> each individual contracts <pause dur="0.2"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> with every other individual to set up a political society a commonwealth <pause dur="0.5"/> and this involves the idea that each individual agrees with every other individual <pause dur="0.7"/> # to to put himself under government he consents thereby to put himself under government each individual in the social contract <pause dur="0.5"/> consents to being under <pause dur="0.2"/> to putting himself <pause dur="0.2"/> under government <pause dur="2.5"/> # but

so that's the the starting point and so far so good but there are notorious difficulties in giving more precise understanding to this notion of government by consent <pause dur="0.7"/> many people say that <pause dur="0.2"/> Locke is hopelessly vague <trunc>o</trunc> or incoherent or both <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and he was subject as we'll see later <pause dur="0.2"/> # next term <pause dur="0.5"/> to <trunc>i</trunc> what many consider to be a devastating attack and critique by the philosopher David Hume for many people <pause dur="0.2"/> Hume's attack seemed <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>k</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> killed this whole idea of <pause dur="0.6"/> # consensual contract and all the rest of it stone dead whether that's really true or not is <pause dur="0.3"/> something i think is an oversimplification <trunc>we</trunc> we'll we'll come to <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> with those warnings about the <pause dur="0.3"/> # difficulties of <pause dur="0.2"/> getting hold of what <trunc>h</trunc> Locke is <pause dur="0.4"/> trying to say <pause dur="0.2"/> let us now look at what Locke is trying to say <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> and i think we can <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> grasp <pause dur="0.3"/> what Locke is getting at <pause dur="0.4"/> better <pause dur="0.5"/> if we <pause dur="0.5"/> as it were separate out five questions <pause dur="0.6"/> now these questions overlap <pause dur="0.6"/> # interpenetrate <pause dur="0.2"/> to quite quite an extent as we'll see but i think <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> it does help to

initially at any rate distinguish <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> five <pause dur="0.2"/> different sorts of questions one can ask even though as i say the answers overlap a great deal <pause dur="0.3"/> first question <pause dur="0.5"/> what does consent mean <pause dur="0.2"/> what does the word <pause dur="0.3"/> consent <pause dur="0.3"/> mean <pause dur="1.9"/> second question <pause dur="0.2"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> counts as the giving of consent <pause dur="0.3"/> what actions words or whatever counts as the giving of consent <pause dur="2.6"/> third question <pause dur="0.4"/> who consents <pause dur="1.2"/> in Locke's theory <pause dur="0.3"/> who is doing this consenting <pause dur="0.9"/> fourth question <pause dur="0.5"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> do they consent to or to what do they consent <pause dur="2.4"/> fifth question <pause dur="0.3"/> in what circumstances does this consent occur <pause dur="0.2"/> when does this consenting go on in what circumstances <pause dur="0.7"/> does this <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> consenting occur <pause dur="0.7"/> as i say in fact these questions <pause dur="0.4"/> and their answers to them are all bound up together <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> in Locke's writing but i think it helps to <pause dur="0.4"/> # abstract them out to some extent <pause dur="1.8"/> first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> what does the word <pause dur="0.2"/> or the <trunc>con</trunc> what does the term consent mean what is the concept <pause dur="0.2"/> of consent <pause dur="0.6"/> amount to <pause dur="0.9"/> now this is a tricky question in itself <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> consent <pause dur="0.2"/> as it were typically or

archetypically means something like this the giving of permission <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and notice that permission giving permission doesn't actually necessarily <pause dur="0.4"/> imply approval in in or a full-hearted approval at any rate <pause dur="0.4"/> # speak in old-fashioned terms <pause dur="0.2"/> a father might give permission for her daughter to get <pause dur="0.4"/> for his daughter to get married without actually approving of the marriage he might think <pause dur="0.5"/> the the the his prospective son-in-law might have all sorts of reservations about him but <pause dur="0.2"/> for all for one reason or another he might actually <pause dur="0.4"/> give permission so permission doesn't necessarily involve <trunc>ap</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> approval it often will <pause dur="0.2"/> but it doesn't necessarily <pause dur="1.0"/> and there is a trickier issue of to what extent the giving of permission <pause dur="0.2"/> has to be <pause dur="0.3"/> free and unforced <pause dur="0.3"/> to count as an authentic case of the giving of consent <pause dur="0.6"/> there is in fact <pause dur="0.2"/> when you think about it <pause dur="0.5"/> something of a continuum here <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> at <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>tha</trunc> at one end is the perfectly <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>fr</trunc> # is <pause dur="0.3"/> perfectly free consent <pause dur="0.2"/> giving permission under no duress whatsoever you quite

freely <pause dur="0.2"/> give your permission to whatever it is <pause dur="0.8"/> moving slightly along the scale there is grudging <pause dur="0.2"/> consent i suppose one could call it well you give permission with some reservations in a grudging manner but nonetheless you give it <pause dur="0.7"/> then there is acquiescence which is <pause dur="0.2"/> i don't like it but i've got to accept it so you still are accepting it sort of <pause dur="0.7"/> just about consent <pause dur="0.4"/> and <trunc>th</trunc> further along the scale too there is forced acquiescence <pause dur="0.2"/> does that count as consent well depends how much force is involved <pause dur="0.4"/> in the forcing but if a man <pause dur="0.3"/> holds a gun at your chest <pause dur="0.4"/> and says i want to take your money <pause dur="0.2"/> there is a sense in which you're going to consent <pause dur="0.2"/> to the taking of your <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>money because you don't like the alternative <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> but can you really say that's giving of consent <pause dur="0.3"/> that's forced acquiescence <pause dur="0.2"/> so just <trunc>w</trunc> how much of that spectrum can <pause dur="0.3"/> legitimately be incorporated in this concept of consent there is room <pause dur="0.4"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> room for some argument <pause dur="0.5"/> and critics of Locke <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes in effect <pause dur="0.3"/> accuse

him <pause dur="0.3"/> of counting acquiescence in <trunc>e</trunc> circumstances where little else is possible as the giving of consent I-E to simplify slightly <pause dur="0.4"/> critics of Locke sometimes say that he will count forced acquiescence <pause dur="0.4"/> as consent <pause dur="0.8"/> and as we'll see <pause dur="0.4"/> this is a key component <pause dur="0.3"/> a key component of Hume's criticism <pause dur="0.4"/> of Locke's social contract theory <pause dur="3.7"/> second question <pause dur="0.6"/> what actions what words <pause dur="0.3"/> or whatever can be counted as <pause dur="0.3"/> showing that consent has been given how do you know that consent has been given <pause dur="0.6"/> well the clearest case quite obviously <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>b</trunc> # where expressed words are used <pause dur="0.3"/> i hereby give my consent is perfectly <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> unambiguous <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> quite clearly i have given my consent if i utter words like that <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and for Locke this is quite clearly what goes on in the original social contract <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> this involves what Locke would call express consent express consent <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> a form of words which quite categorically makes it clear that you're giving consent <pause dur="0.2"/> that is express consent <pause dur="0.6"/> no problem <pause dur="1.3"/> trouble

is <pause dur="0.2"/> that Locke <pause dur="0.2"/> also notoriously makes use of another concept the idea of <pause dur="0.3"/> tacit consent <pause dur="0.5"/> and this is where <pause dur="0.3"/> critics tend to home in on Locke <pause dur="0.3"/> this whole idea of <pause dur="0.3"/> tacit <pause dur="0.2"/> consent <pause dur="0.8"/> critics says this is <pause dur="0.3"/> far too loose a concept <pause dur="0.4"/> and it's not really possible when you're talking about tacit consent <pause dur="0.4"/> to say when consent has or has not been given <pause dur="0.9"/> now what on earth is meant by tacit consent <pause dur="0.5"/> well to give an <pause dur="0.8"/> illustration not <pause dur="0.2"/> given by Locke <pause dur="0.5"/> say <pause dur="0.2"/> you want to borrow a friend's car <pause dur="1.5"/> # now if you ask <pause dur="0.3"/> the friend and the friend says yes <pause dur="0.4"/> i <trunc>he</trunc> i i consent to you <trunc>borrow</trunc> using my car this is express consent no problem you know perfectly well he's consented to your <pause dur="0.4"/> using <pause dur="0.3"/> his car <pause dur="0.4"/> but supposing we envisage a different set of circumstances <pause dur="0.8"/> the friend knows that you very much want to <pause dur="0.3"/> borrow his car <pause dur="0.3"/> you have often borrowed it in the past <pause dur="0.6"/> your friend does not actually say i'm not going to give my consent on this occasion <pause dur="0.2"/> nor indicate that he does not want you to use it <pause dur="0.3"/> so you take <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.5"/> set of

circumstances <pause dur="0.2"/> as showing that he gives his consent <pause dur="0.2"/> and indeed he may be giving his consent <pause dur="0.2"/> but he's only tacit consent he hasn't expressly said so there are sets of circumstances <pause dur="0.3"/> when it can be assumed <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> # or it can be taken that consent is <pause dur="0.3"/> given <pause dur="0.2"/> even though <pause dur="0.4"/> there's no no express consent has been given that is the idea <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> tacit consent and you <trunc>be</trunc> <trunc>c</trunc> <trunc>c</trunc> begin to see that you might have <pause dur="0.2"/> trouble with this <pause dur="0.8"/> and we'll come back to that <pause dur="1.0"/> because the critics say Locke does get into trouble with this <pause dur="2.0"/>

but we'll come back to that <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the meantime <pause dur="0.3"/> let us move on to the third question <pause dur="0.3"/> who consents <pause dur="2.9"/> now in the case of the social contract itself <pause dur="0.6"/> # again <pause dur="0.3"/> # # this is clear <pause dur="0.5"/> the idea is clearly that each individual each and every individual consents <pause dur="1.0"/> each individual makes a contract with every other individual so this is a case <pause dur="0.2"/> of each and every individual <pause dur="0.4"/> consenting <pause dur="0.4"/> they consent <pause dur="0.4"/> to the setting up of a political community you'll remember <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and each individual <pause dur="0.3"/> consents to be a member of the political community <pause dur="0.3"/> and thereby consents to being under government because a political community is a community which is going to set up a government so consenting to be a member of a political community is to consent <pause dur="0.4"/> to being under government <pause dur="0.4"/> so here we have the idea <pause dur="0.4"/> of each <pause dur="0.4"/> # and every individual consenting <pause dur="2.3"/> but when the body politic thus formed when the people has been formed by this act of individuals <trunc>con</trunc> each and every individual consenting when the people has been formed it then sets up a government <pause dur="2.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and here you get the idea of the body politic the

people <pause dur="0.3"/> collectively consenting to the formation of the government <pause dur="0.4"/> or to the formation of a particular government <pause dur="0.3"/> it's not we don't we have now moved subtly from the idea of every individual consenting <pause dur="0.2"/> to the idea of the people as a whole consenting <pause dur="0.2"/> the collectivity now consents to the setting up of this government <pause dur="0.6"/> # and Locke tends to shift between the idea of individual consent and collective consent <pause dur="0.3"/> in a way which is not always <pause dur="0.2"/> easy to follow and perhaps it's not always <pause dur="0.3"/> necessarily <pause dur="0.3"/> # consistent or coherent <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> also to further complicate the issue Locke sometimes makes use of the idea <pause dur="0.5"/> as the people as a whole <pause dur="0.6"/> consenting to <pause dur="0.3"/> particular acts of government <pause dur="0.3"/> you sometimes get the idea particularly when he's talking about <pause dur="0.5"/> # taxation <pause dur="0.4"/> he talks about <trunc>n</trunc> # <pause dur="0.4"/> taxation needing the consent of the people <pause dur="0.7"/> but reading this carefully it doesn't mean that # in order to impose a tax you've got to get the consent of every individual <pause dur="0.3"/> oh no <pause dur="0.5"/> it means that you've

got the <trunc>conse</trunc> the consent of the <pause dur="0.3"/> people as a collectivity in in <trunc>india</trunc> indeed it somehow it <pause dur="0.3"/> gets more watered down than that <pause dur="0.3"/> it turns out to mean in practice you've got to get the consent of the representatives of the people <pause dur="0.3"/> taxation must have the consent of the representatives of the people <pause dur="0.3"/> which is taken as the same thing as the consent of the people <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but this isn't <pause dur="0.2"/> actually the consent of every individual and indeed he has a whole theory of majority decision making here <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> it's a # <trunc>th</trunc> # the people act collectively how do you know what the people <pause dur="0.3"/> want or what the people say or what the <trunc>peo</trunc> what the decision of the people is <pause dur="0.3"/> what do you see what the majority of the people say here you get the idea of majority decision making which has become a key part of <pause dur="0.4"/> democratic thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> the people act by majority vote <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> and there's a there's a whole sort of subliterature on this there's a # <pause dur="0.2"/> well known book by Wilmoore Kendall called John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority

Rule and he <trunc>th</trunc> no one nobody else seems to agree with him but <pause dur="0.2"/> Wilmoore Kendall sees in Locke # <pause dur="0.3"/> a theory of majority tyranny but leave that on one side at the moment it's it's not a <pause dur="0.3"/> it's not a view <pause dur="0.5"/> which many people <pause dur="0.6"/> # share <pause dur="0.2"/> but the point is that he moves subtly <pause dur="0.2"/> from the idea that every individual consents <pause dur="0.2"/> to the idea that the people consent and the people consents means the <trunc>bu</trunc> # means the consent of the majority of the people <pause dur="0.4"/> and he he tends to shift between those <pause dur="2.12"/> fourth point <pause dur="0.4"/> or fourth question <pause dur="0.7"/> what is consented to now we've already raised this in talking about # # the previous question what is consented <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> # # and there are some difficulties here <pause dur="0.4"/> well we've already had difficulties and now we've got more <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> first of all <pause dur="2.3"/> in some circumstances what is being consented to <pause dur="0.2"/> is clearly to being a member of a political community <pause dur="0.3"/> that's what individuals are consenting to in the original social contract that is what is going on <pause dur="0.5"/> in the social contract <pause dur="0.5"/>

individuals <pause dur="0.6"/> consent to being members of a political community <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="4.7"/> each individual consents to being a member of the political community and in consenting to be a member of the political community individuals are thereby also consenting to being under government <pause dur="0.3"/> they are consenting to obey the government <pause dur="0.4"/> # as i said <pause dur="0.2"/> before by <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>b</trunc> consenting to be a member of a political community <pause dur="0.6"/> you know that a political community is a community which is going to set up a government that's the definition of a political community <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>there</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> you're consenting <pause dur="0.3"/> to being under government consenting to obey the government <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> as well as <pause dur="0.2"/> being a member of the community <pause dur="0.2"/> political community <pause dur="0.4"/> # and notice this is again a matter of express consent <pause dur="0.2"/> so going back to <pause dur="0.4"/> what we were talking about earlier so in the social contract people are <pause dur="0.2"/> individuals are expressly consenting to being members of a political community <pause dur="0.4"/> which has the implication of <pause dur="0.3"/> consenting to being <pause dur="0.3"/> under government

to obey the government <pause dur="0.8"/> and that is tolerably clear <pause dur="1.3"/> but now we get to something which isn't quite so clear <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes <pause dur="0.4"/> in fact very often <trunc>ma</trunc> major part of what Locke's talking about <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # we we we we have a <trunc>d</trunc> have a different idea and here confusion <pause dur="0.4"/> # arises <pause dur="0.4"/> because a lot of the time <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>i</trunc> Locke is not talking about individuals <pause dur="0.4"/> being a member consenting to being a member of a political community <pause dur="0.4"/> but merely consenting to being under government without also consenting to be becoming members of a political community <pause dur="0.6"/> # # puzzling idea <pause dur="0.4"/> but part of what's going on here is this that # <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> such individuals who are under government but not members of a political community <pause dur="0.4"/> # means they are not citizens of the community they do not have the accompanying rights such as the right to vote they're under government they <trunc>conse</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea they consent to government without being members of a political community if you were to go to another <pause dur="0.2"/> on holiday to another country <pause dur="0.2"/> as we'll see <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/>

if you were to go to France <pause dur="0.3"/> for your holidays <pause dur="0.4"/> you this could be construed as <pause dur="0.3"/> or part of what <pause dur="0.3"/> # you are <trunc>ad</trunc> # # <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>im</trunc> implying you are doing is consenting to be under the authority of the government of France but you're not becoming a member of the French <pause dur="0.2"/> French <pause dur="0.3"/> French state <pause dur="0.4"/> so when you visit another country <pause dur="0.4"/> you are putting yourself under the government under the authority of the government of that country without being a member of the political community <pause dur="0.5"/> and Locke a lot of the time is talking about individuals putting themselves or consenting to be under government <pause dur="0.4"/> without necessarily being members of the political community and there are some <pause dur="0.4"/> complicated points there <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> now the key point here one of the key points here that is that <pause dur="0.3"/> this kind of consent to being a member of a political <trunc>p</trunc> sorry to be under government <pause dur="0.4"/> is a matter of <pause dur="0.2"/> tacit consent <pause dur="0.4"/> people who form a political community <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>co</trunc> expressly consent to becoming members of a political community <pause dur="0.3"/> but a

lot of the time what Locke is talking about is people tacitly consenting to being under government <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> and i'll <trunc>an</trunc> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # i will now take this further <pause dur="1.0"/> 'cause we now come to the fifth question this will take this further <pause dur="0.6"/> when and in what circumstances is consent given <pause dur="1.8"/> well the express consent to being a member of the political community in the social contract <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> is clear and this is <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> # this is one thing that when one one # notion of when consent is given at the original social contract <pause dur="0.3"/> where people <pause dur="0.3"/> # consent <pause dur="0.3"/> individuals consent <pause dur="0.6"/> expressly consent to being # a a <trunc>p</trunc> a <trunc>p</trunc> a member of a political community <pause dur="0.3"/> Locke is not entirely clear under what other circumstances people expressly consent <pause dur="0.3"/> to being members of a political community although it does <trunc>see</trunc> it does seem that he is considering <pause dur="0.2"/> other circumstances <pause dur="1.0"/> but let us not dwell on that because i want to come to what the the the difficult and important part of what Locke is saying <pause dur="0.4"/> and this is an an and this is

again involves the idea of tacit consent <pause dur="0.7"/> because not only is when you think about it not only is consent given <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> Locke must be committed to saying that not only is consent given by individuals who set up the political community in the first place <pause dur="0.3"/> after all when did that happen <pause dur="0.5"/> well <pause dur="0.2"/> you remember Locke tells us it <pause dur="0.3"/> it was so long ago <pause dur="0.3"/> that it was before records began very often <pause dur="0.2"/> this social contract <pause dur="0.4"/> # if it were to to be taken literally at all happened a long long time ago <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> and it wasn't us that <trunc>con</trunc> did this consenting we weren't alive then nor were our <pause dur="0.3"/> fathers or our grandfathers or even our great-grandfathers or great-great-grandfathers it happened a long time ago <pause dur="0.4"/> all this express consenting to be members of a political community <pause dur="0.3"/> so it's really got nothing <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> whatever <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> to do with us today it's got really got nothing whatever <pause dur="0.4"/> to do with an account of <pause dur="0.3"/> government <pause dur="0.3"/> as it exists <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and you might say at this point <pause dur="0.2"/> and indeed # <pause dur="0.3"/> # this is one of the things of course that critics

of social contract theory say and including Hume you know well this nonsensical idea of giving of consent <pause dur="0.3"/> or of having social contracts ages ago got nothing to do with government today <pause dur="0.5"/> and you might say well at this point let's give up on the whole idea of taking Locke seriously <pause dur="0.6"/> # but of course he doesn't just say this he does give an account of how we <pause dur="0.2"/> or <pause dur="0.5"/> # what she's writing if we use Locke's theory today how we ourselves are giving consent <pause dur="0.5"/> the point is this <pause dur="0.7"/> what according to Locke's theory <pause dur="1.1"/> consent is also given by individuals in subsequent generations it's not just the founding generation that give their consent <pause dur="0.5"/> it is subsequent generations that give their consent not necessarily to be members of the political community <pause dur="0.2"/> but at least being under government <pause dur="1.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> each individual it is true is simply born into a political community or simply born under the authority of the government you might say <pause dur="0.4"/> all right i was born <pause dur="0.2"/> # # # # in Britain i was under the authority

of the British government <pause dur="0.4"/> # i never gave my consent to this nobody every asked me it just is like that <pause dur="0.4"/> # you might feel you know # you're you're forcibly put under <pause dur="0.4"/> # # # a government rather than consenting to be under it and many <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> critics of Locke <pause dur="0.4"/> will think there's a <pause dur="0.2"/> a great deal <pause dur="0.4"/> in that argument <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> so certainly you have no choice in being born you have no <trunc>cons</trunc> no consenting goes on <pause dur="0.3"/> when you're born into this world under the authority of a particular government it's nonsensical to say there's any <trunc>cons</trunc> process of consent <pause dur="0.3"/> tacit or otherwise <pause dur="0.3"/> involved in this and of course <pause dur="0.2"/> Locke isn't saying anything so nonsensical as that <pause dur="0.7"/> what Locke says is that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> each individual <pause dur="0.2"/> when he comes to adulthood <pause dur="1.1"/> consents to remain under the government <pause dur="0.6"/> when he comes to adulthood when he eaches reaches the age of majority <pause dur="0.6"/> when he's a fully <pause dur="0.4"/> a <trunc>p</trunc> a properly rational fully rational individual then he consents or doesn't as the case may be now whether this makes

sense is highly <pause dur="0.3"/> arguable and we'll come come to that in a minute <pause dur="0.3"/> but the idea is that each individual when he reaches adulthood <pause dur="0.5"/> then he consents to being under government he hasn't had any say in the matter <pause dur="0.3"/> there's been no consenting up till that point but then of course <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> childhood is not a matter of consenting you do what you're told <pause dur="0.5"/> but when you get to adulthood then you decide <pause dur="0.5"/> half of what is being involved in being an adult is that now you <pause dur="0.3"/> are a fully autonomous individual <pause dur="0.3"/> and part of being a fully autonomous individual for Locke is consenting or not consenting <pause dur="0.4"/> to being under government <pause dur="1.5"/>

but what does this consenting consist in do we have people coming round from the government knocking on our door saying <pause dur="0.4"/> you're now reached age eighteen do you consent to be under government we don't have anything like that <pause dur="0.4"/> so what on earth is Locke on about <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> and # as i say the thing to thing to remember is that <pause dur="0.3"/> this is tacit consent and he says <pause dur="0.3"/> you consent to remain under government by for example <pause dur="0.2"/> inheriting property if you inherit property <pause dur="0.5"/> you're part of what this <pause dur="0.4"/> can be taken as meaning is that you can consent to be under the government where the <pause dur="0.3"/> # over which <pause dur="0.2"/> # <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> you can <trunc>st</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # under the government where that property is situated <pause dur="0.4"/> or merely perhaps even staying within the territory of the state and this is what <pause dur="0.4"/> Hume <pause dur="0.2"/> and other critics fasten on what an absurd idea but let us see <pause dur="0.3"/> what Locke actually says here <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> and this is <pause dur="0.5"/> paragraph one-nineteen

page <pause dur="0.2"/> three-four-seven <pause dur="5.7"/> <reading>every <pause dur="0.3"/> # # <pause dur="4.2"/> every man as have been showed naturally free and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power but only by his own consent <pause dur="1.4"/> the difficulty is what ought to be looked upon as tacit consent <pause dur="0.2"/> express consent that's that's clear enough <pause dur="0.4"/> the difficulty is what ought to be looked upon as tacit consent <pause dur="0.2"/> and how far it binds <pause dur="0.4"/> I-E how far shall anyone be looked on <pause dur="0.3"/> to have consented and thereby submitted to any government <pause dur="0.2"/> where he has made no expression of it at all <pause dur="0.6"/> and to this i say to this i say <pause dur="0.5"/> that every man that hath any possession <pause dur="0.2"/> or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government <pause dur="0.4"/> doth thereby give his tacit consent <pause dur="0.4"/> and is as far forth obliged to obey obedience to the laws of that government <pause dur="0.3"/> during such enjoyment <pause dur="0.4"/> as anyone under it <pause dur="0.3"/> whether this is his <trunc>posses</trunc> whether this his possession be of land to him and his heirs <pause dur="0.2"/> for ever <pause dur="0.3"/> or lodging <pause dur="0.3"/> # for only a week <pause dur="0.3"/> or whether it be barely

travelling freely on the highway <pause dur="0.3"/> and in effect <pause dur="0.3"/> it reaches as far as the very being of anyone within the territories of that government</reading> <pause dur="0.7"/> that is to say <pause dur="0.2"/> if you remain <pause dur="0.2"/> under that government if you remain within the territories <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> over which that government has authority <pause dur="0.4"/> that means you are tacitly consenting to be under that government <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> as i say many critics think this is <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>entirely nonsensical <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> and to say that merely staying within the territories signifies you've consented to be under that government <pause dur="0.5"/> # critics have come down on this like a ton of bricks <pause dur="0.3"/> # as i say Hume is the most # <pause dur="0.4"/> best known <pause dur="0.5"/> theorist who has criticized this <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and we shall take up such criticisms there may be the criticisms aren't quite as <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> self-evidently <pause dur="0.4"/> # true as many many <pause dur="0.3"/> many think but we'll take up such criticism <pause dur="0.3"/> when we look at Hume's critique of Locke's social contract <pause dur="0.3"/> but we should remember here one thing <trunc>sh</trunc> we should remember here <pause dur="0.6"/> and this makes it look a little less

nonsensical <pause dur="0.7"/> one thing we should remember here that Locke is talking about legitimate government <pause dur="0.4"/> Locke is talking about legitimate government <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="2.2"/> he is not saying <pause dur="0.6"/> that # such consent <pause dur="0.2"/> occurs under tyrannies under despotical governments tyrannical governments <pause dur="0.8"/> # indeed <pause dur="0.7"/> the existence of consent is one of the marks of a legitimate government a legitimate government is one where there is consent <pause dur="0.2"/> or to put the point the other way round <pause dur="0.4"/> if there is no consent then that shows the government is illegitimate <pause dur="0.4"/> and people are inclined to say and Hume does as we'll see say this sort of thing <pause dur="0.5"/> there are some governments where it's <trunc>s</trunc> so manifestly impossible to leave their jurisdiction <pause dur="0.6"/> as to say that if you remain there <pause dur="0.3"/> # it cannot be shown as giving your giving of consent <pause dur="0.4"/> to take a modern <trunc>e</trunc> or not quite modern a more modern example <pause dur="0.5"/> people who remained in East Berlin <pause dur="0.7"/> couldn't be <trunc>sh</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> taken as showing they consented to the government of East Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> why not <pause dur="0.3"/> because they couldn't get

out of East Berlin even if they wanted to not at their not at least without climbing over a dirty great wall and being shot while they did it <pause dur="0.5"/> so the fact that people remained in East Berlin couldn't be shown <pause dur="0.2"/> in any sensible way as showing they consented to be under the government of East Berlin <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.5"/> legitimate government now that's a different matter <pause dur="0.6"/> if you want to leave this country you don't have to climb over a wall nobody's going to shoot you and so on but anyway we'll leave those # # <trunc>man</trunc> many people say ah yes but in fact it's so difficult to do it that it's just the same thing but we'll <pause dur="0.3"/> we'll leave the validity of those criticisms <pause dur="0.3"/> for another time <pause dur="0.3"/> but merely to show <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> that that <trunc>r</trunc> do remember that Locke is giving account <pause dur="0.3"/> of legitimate government he's only saying that this kind of tacit consent occurs under legitimate government he's not trying to say <pause dur="0.5"/> and indeed <pause dur="0.4"/> his very point is to point out that this kind of tacit consent does not occur under

despotical government <pause dur="3.2"/> so let's try and give a summary overall picture of # <pause dur="1.2"/> # of Locke's account of government or rather <pause dur="0.2"/> the nature <pause dur="0.2"/> of legitimate government <pause dur="0.5"/> # and remember that a key objective of Locke is precisely to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate government <pause dur="0.4"/> # and of course you know thinking of the <pause dur="0.2"/> historical circumstances <pause dur="0.4"/> part of what he was doing was showing that the government of James the Second was illegitimate <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> legitimate government is voluntarily created and consented to <pause dur="0.2"/> and its purpose is to uphold the natural law and natural rights and to do <pause dur="0.3"/> no more than this it is limited government <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> it is if you like <pause dur="0.2"/> liberal government this is the # the the sort of archetypal expression of liberal political theories it's a liberal account of government <pause dur="0.6"/> or to put the key points another way <pause dur="0.5"/> government has to meet two conditions before it can be deemed to be legitimate <pause dur="0.4"/> first <pause dur="0.3"/> it must be consented to <pause dur="1.4"/> second <pause dur="0.5"/> it must stick to what it has been set up to do <pause dur="0.5"/>

uphold natural law and natural rights <pause dur="0.2"/> that is to say it must not break the terms of the trust by which it was created <pause dur="1.3"/> if it persistently violates natural law and natural rights <pause dur="1.8"/> then it becomes illegitimate <pause dur="1.3"/> and it can quite <trunc>pope</trunc> quite properly be removed by other people <pause dur="0.7"/> # this of course <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> according to Locke is what the English people did <pause dur="0.2"/> to James the Second at the Glorious Revolution let's see what he actually says about this <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/> paragraphs two-o-eight to nine pages four-o-four to five <pause dur="0.7"/> he says # <pause dur="2.3"/> and part of what he's trying do <trunc>sho</trunc> is to show here <trunc>un</trunc> <trunc>un</trunc> under what circumstances it is proper for people to seek to remove the government <pause dur="0.5"/> because he's # <pause dur="0.2"/> cognisant of the criticism <pause dur="0.3"/> that if every time the government does something which is against the rules people say ah we can overthrow the government this is # <pause dur="0.3"/> # clearly going to <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # lead to # <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # instability <pause dur="0.7"/> # <trunc>s</trunc> so he talks about the right of resisting <pause dur="0.3"/> he talks about the <trunc>resight</trunc> of # <pause dur="1.0"/> #

resisting <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>manifest acts of tyranny <pause dur="0.3"/> which will not suddenly or on slight occasions disturb the government <pause dur="0.4"/> for if <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> for if to reach no farther than some private men's cases though they have a right to defend themselves and to recover by force <pause dur="0.3"/> what by unlawful force is taken to them <pause dur="0.3"/> yet the right to do so will not easily <pause dur="0.3"/> engage them in a contest <pause dur="0.3"/> wherein they are sure to perish <pause dur="0.4"/> it being as impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government <pause dur="0.4"/> where the body of people do not think themselves concerned</reading> if just a few people think they're being unduly oppressed by the government <pause dur="0.5"/> # as a few individual grievances <pause dur="0.2"/> we're not going to get any <pause dur="0.3"/> any removal of the government <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading>but if either of these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people <pause dur="0.4"/> or if the mischief and oppression has lighted <pause dur="0.3"/> only on some few but in such cases as the precedent and consequence is seen to threaten all <pause dur="0.7"/> and they are persuaded in their

consciences that their laws and with them their estates and liberties and lives are in danger <pause dur="0.3"/> and perhaps their religion too <pause dur="0.6"/> how will they be <pause dur="0.3"/> how <pause dur="0.2"/> how they will be <trunc>pe</trunc> hindered from resisting illegal force used against them i cannot tell</reading> I-E <pause dur="0.3"/> when there's general <pause dur="0.6"/> # infringement of natural rights <pause dur="0.3"/> and when it's affecting all or at least a majority of the people when it's affecting a few people in a such a way as <pause dur="0.4"/> # leads the rest of them to think they're under threat <pause dur="0.3"/> then <pause dur="0.3"/> # removal or resistance against the government <pause dur="0.2"/> can become possible and it <trunc>b</trunc> can can <pause dur="0.3"/> can become <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> legitimate <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> and there's two points to note about this and we'll end on this <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> who is to judge who is to judge whether the government has broken the terms of the trust <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> Locke havers a bit on this <pause dur="0.4"/> but essentially he says <pause dur="0.4"/> it is the <pause dur="0.3"/> it is the people who must decide it is the people who must decide <pause dur="0.3"/> paragraph two-forty page four-two-six <pause dur="2.3"/> <reading>who shall be judge

whether the prince or legislative</reading> that is to say the legislator <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading><trunc>ha</trunc> act contrary to their trust <pause dur="0.4"/> the people shall be judge <pause dur="0.3"/> for who shall be judge <pause dur="0.3"/> whether his trustee or deputy acts well and according to the trust reposed in him <pause dur="0.4"/> but he who disputes him and must by <pause dur="0.4"/> having disputed him still have power to discard him when he fails in his trust</reading> <pause dur="0.4"/> so crucially it is the people <pause dur="0.6"/> who decide whether the trust has been broken <pause dur="0.2"/> and some see in this of course the genesis of # a theory of democracy <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the second point to note is to return to a point i've made several times already <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> that <trunc>th</trunc> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> this idea of the people removing the government <pause dur="0.2"/> implies <pause dur="0.3"/> or involves the idea <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> of the people as an entity which can act <pause dur="0.5"/> # apart from the government

I-E the people themselves can act to remove the government remember this doesn't make sense for Hobbes the people <pause dur="0.4"/> only exist can only act <pause dur="0.2"/> through the sovereign <pause dur="0.6"/> # no sovereign no people for Locke <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the government and the people are separate entities <pause dur="0.3"/> and the people can act as an entity <pause dur="0.3"/> to remove the government <pause dur="0.6"/> they can then be without a government and set up another government so that here's the people as an agency as it were <pause dur="0.4"/> # which is something which doesn't even make sense for Hobbes <pause dur="1.0"/> well next time which will i think will be the last lecture because on the following Thursday actually term ends # # and by convention <trunc>cert</trunc> # term doesn't # ends at midday i think <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> # i'll be talking about <trunc>s</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> controversies regarding Locke's account of private <pause dur="0.2"/> property